This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 43%, LD 11%, UKIP 10%.

I’m always wary of reading too much into small movements in polls, but four of the last five YouGov polls have had Labour leads of 12 or more, so it is beginning to look as if the Labour lead has increased slightly. This seems to be down to a drop in Conservative support and an increase for UKIP, rather than any shift in Labour support, presumably due to the publicity UKIP have recieved in recent weeks from the Rotherham adoption case, the speculation about a Conservative-UKIP pact and their strong performance in last week’s by-elections.

There is also a new poll by Angus Reid, whose British polls are becoming increasingly infrequent. Topline figures there are CON 28%(-1), LAB 42%(-3), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 11%(+3). Changes are since March, the last time Angus Reid did a British voting intention poll. The fourteen point lead for Labour, while large in comparison to other companies, is actually a drop from Angus Reid’s previous poll – for whatever reason, they tend to show by far the largest Labour leads of any pollster.


378 Responses to “New YouGov and Angus Reid polls”

1 6 7 8
  1. ‘I just do not agree with those who think increasing debt would help’

    Well I agree with that. But I wasn’t aware that our possibilities were limited to borrowing or not. We could raise more revenue, as we have done before when in a real debt crisis not this relatively tame one.

    The biggest debt in this country is held by banks and other financial organisations, about four times greater than public debt, itself massively inflated from the crisis in banking and its(OMG! IS THIS RIGHT???) effects on the real economy.

    However, there are estimates of about 700bn of unused capital in corporations. I would levy a tax on unused capital which would either raise public revenues or encourage idle capital to enter the real economy for fear of the taxman.

    Report comment

  2. “However i bow to your judgment as always and will go and do something else.”

    Me too.Cuppa time.

    Report comment

  3. Tim Morgan :razz: who cares?

    What do the public think of the Autumn Statement & will their opinions change, if certain areas of it are dragged into the spotlight by e.g. debates & votes in the HoC?

    Anthony is the man who’s work I am eagerly awaiting; what will be the polling questions (if any!) which this Autumn Statement will generate. That’s where the rubber hits the road, so to speak.

    Report comment

  4. In my previous comment, who’s should be whose; shouldn’t it? Experts, please confirm! ;-)

    Report comment

  5. There might be a dip in Tory support but how much lower can it go?

    What happens by this time next year as more and more cuts bite and we realise we are about to do another growth-less year? By then I would expect both Government parties to be absolute rock bottom. The fear is we start to see serious support for extreme nationalist parties a la 30s.

    Report comment

  6. @ The Other Howard

    I do not need to understand where other posters are coming from as i am sure i already understand.
    ————————–
    Thanks for confirming my assessment of your invitation to respond to Tim Morgan’s article! You actually had no interest whatsoever in having my response to it; you were simply attempting a bit of partisan mockery at my expense. Good to know that my rather snidey response was appropriate.

    I will however apologise to Anthony for being snidey on his sight :oops: I’ll try to show more self-control hereafter, Anthony.

    Report comment

  7. Sight = Site. I am in a typo hole today; time to stop digging!
    8-)

    Report comment

  8. ALEC

    Thanks.

    I can understand why resort to post war debt levels is superficially comforting for those who feel that endless deficit funding is not a problem.

    But there are enough studies available for both of us to try & understand the differences between then & now.

    Anyway-as you correctly observed, the average voter is not anxiously thumbing through such studies, but concentrating on their mortgage rate/ job/lack of job/cost of living etc

    GOs numbers make me feel that the likelihood of Ed Miliband being in charge of this nightmare is that bit more likely.

    So you don’t have long to wait for all the “correct solutions”

    Report comment

  9. Anthony:

    “I have’t moderated anyone’s posts”

    Is that because it wasn’t me joining in?

    [Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean I’m not being got at….]

    ps: I liked your comment on understanding other people’s views. The problem with politicians of course is that “debate” for them simply means shouting their own ideas at the other side.

    It would be wonderful to have empirical evidence that if the govt had taken the opposite view on something [any govt] then the opposition would also go the other way. Impossible without the time-machine I’m working on [which is rubbish ‘cos I seem to be getting older quicker than ever]
    but I’m sure there is some truth in the idea that oppositions feel duty bound to oppose virtually everything.

    Report comment

  10. I think the madness thing is important. The government clearly believe that having a deficit is important – since they have one right now – and they could get rid of it in a jiffy (e.g. by tax rises) but haven’t. Indeed we have tax cuts. Presumably they think this is an important “investment” despite the fact that tax cuts increase the deficit.

    Yet the rhetoric does not match the action: the talk is all about how bad the deficit is! Isn’t this a form of madness? Labour have a subtly different madness: calling for economic stimulus yet castigating the government for missing its deficit-reduction targets. But surely the whole point is we want to miss these targets? That’s what stimulus means? Or not?

    The fact is that none of the politicians have a clear story to tell on this. It isn’t surprising the public are confused.

    Report comment

  11. TOH

    @”So good it should be compusory reading for every adult who has a vote.”

    Indeed, but I must agree with Alec, that voters would not want to be told-and with Nick , that the flight to “someone else” to take the pain away might be politically unpleasant.

    Report comment

  12. @Robbie Alive

    ““the its” & thus must = a proper noun or name? ”

    Things don’t get capitalised like that – this isn’t Germany :-)

    chair chair chair – Green

    The chairs’ colour is green

    Report comment

  13. HAL

    @”they could get rid of it in a jiffy (e.g. by tax rises) ”

    Have you the foggiest idea what the numbers look like?

    a)Deficit £120bn

    b) Current total of ALL ( repeat ALL) Tax revenue £580bn

    Do you want to want to work out what a) as a % of b) is-or shall I tell you?

    Report comment

  14. Watching news headlines is more informative than politics proggies, with regard to what the majority of the population “get” from news. It seems pretty negative re the govt to me with interviews with people struggling dominating.

    Impressions are everything and facts and understanding them aren’t in the race at all.

    The idea that borrowing when in debt is wrong, per se, is daft. If I had a cafe that wasn’t attracting people because of style/decor etc and was broke, then borrowing to put that right and increasing turnover would be very sensible. Doing nothing and having to borrow just to survive or, even worse, go bankrupt would be rather silly.

    Maybe that is not the best analogy, but how it is a good idea to sack civil servants [who I believe are actual people, with families and homes] does seem, to use DC’s word, “bonkers” to me.

    Where’s MinM? Has he got that job? I hope so.

    Report comment

  15. Colin,

    So increase all tax rates by 100%x120/580=20.7%. Problem solved! If you believe the rhetoric, then this should lead to greater business confidence and the economy would blossom.

    So why aren’t they doing it? Presumably (like me) they believe that the stimulus effect of the deficit is more important than the supposed benefits of eliminating the deficit.

    Report comment

  16. The Other Howard @ Ozwald and Nick P

    “How was the huge debt brought down after 45? Answer by really really tough austerity! I remember those years well.”

    Every year the chancellor (whatever party was in power) would boast that he had been able to do something for “people on small fixed incomes” or his opponent would deplore the fact that he had not done so, or not enough

    The people who paid for the war were patriotic middle class single women, living off family savings invested in War Loan and not prepared for the workplace. They had lost their husbands or chance of a male provider and their savings were confiscated by low interest and inflation.

    Report comment

  17. If the deficit is £120bn then it could be turned into a surplus by tearing up the assets bought with QE (currently £350bn).

    In other words, by printing money.

    Of course you need to ensure that what you spend long term over the economic cycle does not exceed what you get in…otherwise you would need to print money every year forever and in fact you could spend whatever you like. Inflation might be frightening quite quick though.

    But the books could be balance now (in fact he’s already used the interest on the QE purchases to reduce it. Then the problem will be to get income up and expenditure down.

    Spend the difference between 350bn (QE) and deficit £120bn stimulating the economy and injecting cash into people’s pockets to spend?

    Once the economy is going, then might be the time to see whether reducing the state leads to expanded private sector…personally I don’t think it would, unless you count privatised public services replacing publicly employed employees, which saves nothing for the taxpayer (might even cost more long term AND shrink the economy by pushing workers wages doen at the expense of a few bosses who don’t spend all the money).

    I’d like to see ideology abandoned and concentration on getting the economy churning. Normal arguments about public vs private can resume when things are in positive shape.

    Report comment

  18. @ Robin ccc @ P Croft

    “Things don’t get capitalised like that – this isn’t Germany
    chair chair chair – Green
    The chairs’ colour is green”

    But chair is “common” not a “proper” noun, unless it’s the P. Croft Chair of Paranoia Studies: “it” is a pronoun [lower-case] or a proper noun [upper] never a common noun?

    But I’ll break with the unproductive dogmatism of this site & look to falsify my own hypothesis.
    You’ll know the game in which one kid is “I/it”. In some versions the “I/its” multiply. If they were to wear red, you could say “the I/its’ colour is red”. The question: is “I/it” in the tag game upper- or lower-case? All enquires lead to other enquries . .

    Report comment

  19. Amber et al,

    The Treasury forecasts cover year 12/13. The auctions are scheduled for March 13 which is within the 12/13 year, so it is legitimate to forecast those revenues on a prudent basis. If they do not happen or realise less than anticipated then that will be reflected post-event.
    Enron were pulling forward fictitious and real revenues, recognising a (discounted) aggregate value of multi-year future service contracts, which would be a comparable scenario if the 4G auction was to either take place beyond the forecasted year in question, or indeed if they were auctioned on an annual network contract price rather than an upfront price.

    Report comment

  20. @Robbie

    I’m pretty adamant that they are lc. Capitalisation refers specifically to a named person or item, not a generic.

    Anyway, to give a further example, where I think your objection fails: One can refer to a piece of text where every word is printed in a different colour. ‘it’ is always printed in red, but ‘It’ is printed in purple. It can only be true to say that its’ colour is red, because in this case Its’ colour is purple.

    Report comment

  21. @HM

    “The Treasury forecasts cover year 12/13. The auctions are scheduled for March 13 which is within the 12/13 year, so it is legitimate to forecast those revenues on a prudent basis.”

    Be that as it may, when are the funds going to actually arrive in the Treasury coffers? Furthermore, my understanding is that those funds are already earmarked for capital projects, and so should come under the ‘capital account’ rather than the ‘current account’. I know that government doesn’t do accounting in this manner, but it does simply emphasise that this is simply a device for transferring borrowing from one year to another, simply for presentational purposes.

    The fact is, the OBR is so useless that even with that slight of hand there is a good chance that borrowing will rise in any case.

    Report comment

  22. TOH
    @Ozwald and Nick P

    just confirms the point. How was the huge debt brought down after 45? Answer by really really tough austerity! I remember those years well.
    ————————————————————————-

    Of course within 12 years or so of the end of the War, people had never had it so good, so presumably the Austerity wasn’t such a drag.

    Interesting when you go back to look at the numbers, that the UK’s public debt to GDP fell from about 230% in 1945 to about 40% in 1975.

    In only 5 of those 30 years did we actually have a budget surplus (1947, 48, 57, 68, 69) and even those surpluses were tiny. Between 1945 and 1975 the net public debt increased from ~£22bn to ~£47bn.

    The way we actually got out of that hell hole of debt was by growth and inflation. We’ve had inflation being the bogeyman since the mid-70s, but it really ought to be a big part of the solution (world-wide) to getting out of the current hole.

    This fits in with the argument that we need a paradigm shift in economic thinking. We are NOT going to reduce the debt by Austerity – certainly not by globally co-ordinated Austerity. We need to be looking back at the solutions that worked 60-odd years ago.

    And before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not, of course, saying that inflation is a magic, pain-free answer. Just that, managed well, it can be a lot less painful and destructive than the path that we and Europe are currently on.

    Report comment

  23. The IFS:

    It looks like 2015-16 will see a further 3% real cut in other budgets on average.

    Roll forward to 2017-18, and if the NHS and schools continue to be protected, and no more welfare cuts or tax rises are found, then these unprotected spending areas – police, local government, defence, environment, transport – face cumulative real terms cuts of 16% in the three years to 2017-18, or cuts of nearly a third since 2010.

    That begins to look close to inconceivable. Further welfare cuts and tax rises must be on the cards. £27 billion worth would be required to protect other spending in real terms.

    My problem is that it looks inconceivable without increased revenue from those can afford it. The idea that welfare can be slashed indefinitely ignores the fact that all these cuts incur cots elsewhere or later. Crime, health, homelessness, poverty, ignorance leading to perpetual unemployment…the welfare state addressed these things, perhaps imperfectly, but the alternative…not having them at all…is not a conceivable alternative if you don’t want to see serious social breakdown.

    The figures make no sense.

    Report comment

  24. I predict a 15% Labour/YG lead quite soon

    Report comment

  25. Actually, given the number of interviews of people criticising the chancellor, and the absurdity of pigeon-holing huge groups of people, in work or looking for for work, as “skivers or strivers”, the 15% could be tomorrow.

    How [and why] do you become “royal” correspondent? It sounds like a jolly dull job.

    Report comment

  26. “Tingedfringe… are you there….we need your analysis! ”
    Simple – nothing has changed.. err.. perhaps a little more?
    Labour seems to be up slightly, LibDems and UKIP up slightly and Tories slightly down.
    Wait and see if this persists.

    And on the ‘We need to always run a surplus! We need to cut spending to X% of GDP!’ and ‘We can run a deficit! We need to increase spending to X% of GDP!’

    I always find these discussions interesting because those with capitalist or conservative politics favour lower spending [1] (always to some arbitrary % of GDP[2]) and those with socialist or social democratic politics favour higher spending (always to some arbitrary % of GDP[2]).
    And both sides are always able to find evidence that supports their side (and always their side).

    It’s almost like there’s a link between ideology and someone’s ‘objective’ view of reality.
    Of course, those who have the ‘objective’ view of reality will argue that their ideology is based on reality as it’s the other side that is delusional. ;)

    [1] Atleast in the case of capitalist ideology. It becomes a lot more complex with dealing with conservative ideology.
    UKIP and Republicans both favour lower spending.. except military spending and any other conservative ‘pet projects’, even when it’s a higher % of GDP than any comparable western country.
    [2] And the reason for the arbitrary figure is never explained – nor where the money is going to be saved/spent.
    If 45%, why not 50%? If 30%, why not 25%? etc

    Report comment

  27. And as a note to my above post –
    That isn’t always to say that those who’re ideological aren’t concious of their ideology.

    There are plenty of small-state ideologues who believe that Keynesian spending works, or large-state ideologues who believe in the laffer curve but just don’t care.

    You can see this in polling – when people are asked about the rich paying more tax, plenty say that it is a moral obligation for the rich to pay a higher % even if it doesn’t bring in any more revenue.

    In September 2011 (VI Con 38, Lab 41, LD 9) this was 42% of people who thought it was morally right vs 45% who believed that high taxes should be abolished if they don’t bring in higher revenues.
    Both Labour and LibDem voters had majorities supporting higher rates as a moral imperative.

    Report comment

  28. AMBER
    I am surprised that you have been left there, arms waving over the swamp, for an answer to an apostrophe question: according to me and e-learning:
    “The trouble here is due to the apostrophe, which on 99% of English words indicates possession, but on this one simply indicates a contraction. If you can replace the word with who is or who has, use who’s. If not, use whose.” So it’s whose.
    On austerity, the interest of the post ’45 period of governmenty is that it is a remembered reality, not conjecture, and that the Labour Government, mainly Strachey, pursued an austerity policy which reached very deeply into public life, was seen as paying for the costs of the war, including debt to the US, and so a matter of patriotism or loyalty to party, not a matter of economic theory, and had some pretty odd protagonists: e.g. Chalky White, Trotskyite General Secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association, who made the round of the CSCA branches to campaign against the Labour Government’s public sector wage freeze in 46/47.

    Report comment

1 6 7 8